World Cup 2018/2022 Decision to be made

Warper

There is no real surprise in Russia getting the WC 2018. It had never been held there before, which considering the interest there plus the massive population, it made sense.

But Qatar getting the 2022 WC is an absolute joke. They barely have a soccer team, let alone the stadia. It is blatantly clear that FIFA are as corrupt as Vladimir Putin/Bertie Ahern. 40 degrees celcius, exorbitant prices which means no one will travel leaving just drones at each game, a country that has little interest in soccer bar showing off their wealth to the world like in F1 where the track has no soul and also a country that has a ban on alcohol/gambling/prostitution and you wonder WTF?? Thanks for the cash

flahavaj

the_monkey wrote: »

Brilliant.

What age were you when united started dominating the EPL ?

Old enough to see the value of things like history and pedigree.

Mister men

thomond2006 wrote: »

I feel sorry for England but they have been really bad losers IMO.

No surprise there then. Some of the comments on sky TV i've seen this evening are bordering on libel. From a personal point of view i'm delighted Russia got the tournament as i know several Russian people (including my ex) and they are a wonderful warm people. Fantastic choice for the World Cup and can't wait until Ireland qualify.:)

MisterAnarchy

It seems the Brazilian and Argentinian members of the Fifa Executive voted for Qatar as opposed to the USA for 2022.
Instead of voting for a country nearby which has a lot of immigrants they voted for a tiny ,desert state,with no football history or culture,halfway around the world.:rolleyes:
I suppose it wouldnt have anything to do with Brazil and Argentina playing a few friendlies in Doha for an undisclosed fee ?

BERBA

the_monkey wrote: »

Brilliant.

What age were you when united started dominating the EPL ?

flah was around 30 when he started supporting utd in 1999:)

Paparazzo

Mister men wrote: »

No surprise there then. Some of the comments on sky TV i've seen this evening are bordering on libel. From a personal point of view i'm delighted Russia got the tournament as i know several Russian people (including my ex) and they are a wonderful warm people. Fantastic choice for the World Cup and can't wait until Ireland qualify.:)

Agree about Russians, although I would be worried about the police there.

Stinicker

Paparazzo wrote: »

Agree about Russians, although I would be worried about the police there.

They're grand once you have enough Rubles for them!

Dozen Wicked Words

Stinicker wrote: »

They're grand once you have enough Rubles for them!

Think they prefer dollars

Mr.Nice Guy

BBC's Sports Editor David Bond just said on the news that before they voted for the 2018 host Blatter reminded everyone of the media reports in England and that he was strongly urging for a Russian win. Doesn't seem appropriate that the head of the sport is able to influence the outcome in this way.

the untitled user

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

BBC's Sports Editor David Bond just said on the news that before they voted for the 2018 host Blatter reminded everyone of the media reports in England and that he was strongly urging for a Russian win. Doesn't seem appropriate that the head of the sport is able to influence the outcome in this way.

This doesn't surprise me. Blatter is probably scared ****less at the freedom of the press in England and the damage that could be done to his 'legacy' *cough* offshore bank accounts *cough* And after the embarrassment that was Warner's ticket fiasco that was uncovered in '06, is there any surprise Blatter would seek to push the bids of those countries not known for their transparancy :pac:

gaf1983

Warper wrote: »

But Qatar getting the 2022 WC is an absolute joke. They barely have a soccer team, let alone the stadia. It is blatantly clear that FIFA are as corrupt as Vladimir Putin/Bertie Ahern. 40 degrees celcius, exorbitant prices which means no one will travel leaving just drones at each game, a country that has little interest in soccer bar showing off their wealth to the world like in F1 where the track has no soul and also a country that has a ban on alcohol/gambling/prostitution and you wonder WTF?? Thanks for the cash

That's bollocks, soccer is the number one sport in Qatar and the games regularly attract higher attendances than League of Ireland games.

Qatar doesn't host F1.

Alcohol isn't banned there.

Cost of living is quite cheap. And there are towns with stadia outside of Doha.

Savman

gaf1983 wrote: »

That's bollocks, soccer is the number one sport in Qatar

Ah that's touching, it really is. Number one in a field of one no doubt!

Where the hell is it anyways? Corrupt Bizarre decision for a World Cup. Just can't see it materialising and I'll bump this thread in 12yrs time to say 'I told yiz so'.

Dolph Starbeam

Savman wrote: »

Ah that's touching, it really is. Number one in a field of one no doubt!

Where the hell is it anyways? Corrupt Bizarre decision for a World Cup. Just can't see it materialising and I'll bump this thread in 12yrs time to say 'I told yiz so'.

Why is World Cup in bold? "Where the hell is it anyways?" such ignorance, google search it instead of asking such a stupid question. Why can't you see it materialising?

If Fifa is so corrupt in choosing Qatar to host the 2022 WC how come they did not choose England for 2018 when England was the one which showed they would get the most money out of any of the 2018 bids. Don't get me wrong i know Fifa are not 100% straight but Qatar was actually a good choice imo, looking into it they put together a very good package. I know it is inconvenient for travelling to for us, but USA, Japan, Korea and Australia are not exactly next door to us either. As long as we make it to the WC i couldn't care where the hell it is.

ArmaniJeanss

MOG7 wrote: »

If Fifa is so corrupt in choosing Qatar to host the 2022 WC how come they did not choose England for 2018 when England was the one which showed they would get the most money out of any of the 2018 bids.

FIFA have to file actual accounts after the World Cup, accounting for all revenues from tickets/sponsorship/TV etc and distrubute this amongst the competing nations. It's quite difficult to cream a bit off the top here, so to an extent it makes no difference to an allegedly corrupt FIFA official where the finals are held as even if it makes more in England they can't get their hands on it.

The implication re the bidding process that people are making is that Russia and Qatar made untraceable under the counter payments to officials in return for votes.

johnmcdnl

am I or any other supporters of the Qater 2022 bid allowed to bump this thread 12 years from now to prove we were right when 2022 turns out to be a great World Cup...:rolleyes::rolleyes:

All the stadiums will be air conditioned so no worries for the players or fans there... The stadiums and infrastructure will be amazing because they will want to show the world that Qatar is an amazing country, we'll all get to see a brand new country, alcohol will be allowed in designated areas (which fans no doubt will never venture from anyways but sur)

what more do you want for a World Cup...
new scenery and when it's built an amazing infrastructural network for fans to get to games... and something tells me there's no scumbags going to arrive at any games in Qatar so fans will be safe as well as anything else :)

all is good for everyone - anyone want to argue now that Qatar isn't a football stronghold and therefore doesn't deserve a WC on that basis alone:o

Warper

gaf1983 wrote: »

That's bollocks, soccer is the number one sport in Qatar and the games regularly attract higher attendances than League of Ireland games.Qatar doesn't host F1.

Alcohol isn't banned there.

Cost of living is quite cheap. And there are towns with stadia outside of Doha.

Enough said

Warper

johnmcdnl wrote: »

am I or any other supporters of the Qater 2022 bid allowed to bump this thread 12 years from now to prove we were right when 2022 turns out to be a great World Cup...:rolleyes::rolleyes:

All the stadiums will be air conditioned so no worries for the players or fans there... The stadiums and infrastructure will be amazing because they will want to show the world that Qatar is an amazing country, we'll all get to see a brand new country, alcohol will be allowed in designated areas (which fans no doubt will never venture from anyways but sur)

what more do you want for a World Cup...
new scenery and when it's built an amazing infrastructural network for fans to get to games... and something tells me there's no scumbags going to arrive at any games in Qatar so fans will be safe as well as anything else :)

all is good for everyone - anyone want to argue now that Qatar isn't a football stronghold and therefore doesn't deserve a WC on that basis alone:o

Its a joke, plain and simple. Anyone that thinks Qatar is worthy of staging a WC is beyond talking to. It has a population of 1.7 million. The WC will be a pretentious facade of sh1t with a bought crowd and no atmosphere. Bribes bought this venue and blind people can see that.

efb

Why would u have in it engerland? Self appointed creators of the modern game, yet Brum Darby exactly showed where English football is...

Eastern Yurp and Middle East never hosted! Good look to Russia and Qatar!

efb

Warper wrote: »

Its a joke, plain and simple. Anyone that thinks Qatar is worthy of staging a WC is beyond talking to. It has a population of 1.7 million. The WC will be a pretentious facade of sh1t with a bought crowd and no atmosphere. Bribes bought this venue and blind people can see that.

ENGLAND WON'T GET IT Crying to mama FIFA

Warper

efb wrote: »

Why would u have in it engerland? Self appointed creators of the modern game, yet Brum Darby exactly showed where English football is...

Eastern Yurp and Middle East never hosted! Good look to Russia and Qatar!

I agree with Russia but I think Australia should have gotten 2022. England didnt deserve it but seriously Qatar is just taking the piss. The WC will soon become like the FA Cup, who gives a fcuk as its a joke.

Warper

efb wrote: »

ENGLAND WON'T GET IT Crying to mama FIFA

WTF are you on about ?????

Warper

efb wrote: »

Why would u have in it engerland? Self appointed creators of the modern game, yet Brum Darby exactly showed where English football is...

Eastern Yurp and Middle East never hosted! Good look to Russia and Qatar!

If it was to be held in the Middle East, then surely it should be held in a country that has at least previously qualified for the WC. Iran or Iraq hold more merit than Qatar. FIFA can go fcuk themselves as they are single-handedly destroying what should be the greatest competition in the World.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

efb wrote: »

Why would u have in it engerland? Self appointed creators of the modern game, yet Brum Darby exactly showed where English football is...

Eastern Yurp and Middle East never hosted! Good look to Russia and Qatar!

Fcuk off, tbh. Russia's hooliganism is much more rife in the mainstream than England's hooliganism is.

dfx-

I don't get the fear of Qatar as hosts..no more risky than the USA in 1994 or sharing between Japan and Korea in 2002, both excellent tournaments. Perhaps it's somewhere different that has the fear..why not go for it

As I said before, why Russia would get picked over Spain/Portugal would be my question

Mr.Nice Guy

johnmcdnl wrote: »

am I or any other supporters of the Qater 2022 bid allowed to bump this thread 12 years from now to prove we were right when 2022 turns out to be a great World Cup...:rolleyes::rolleyes:

All the stadiums will be air conditioned so no worries for the players or fans there... The stadiums and infrastructure will be amazing because they will want to show the world that Qatar is an amazing country, we'll all get to see a brand new country, alcohol will be allowed in designated areas (which fans no doubt will never venture from anyways but sur)

what more do you want for a World Cup...
new scenery and when it's built an amazing infrastructural network for fans to get to games... and something tells me there's no scumbags going to arrive at any games in Qatar so fans will be safe as well as anything else :)

all is good for everyone - anyone want to argue now that Qatar isn't a football stronghold and therefore doesn't deserve a WC on that basis alone:o

dfx- wrote:

I don't get the fear of Qatar as hosts..no more risky than the USA in 1994 or sharing between Japan and Korea in 2002, both excellent tournaments. Perhaps it's somewhere different that has the fear..why not go for it

They were the only 2022 bid deemed to be a 'high overall risk'.

The hot weather in Qatar in June and July is one of Fifa's concerns about the country's suitability.

In part of the evaluation report which has been made public, Fifa said playing the competition in the two hottest months had to be "considered as a potential health risk for players, officials, the Fifa family and spectators, and requires precautions to be taken".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/9199020.stm

Another concern was '12 stadiums located within a 20 mile radius.' Amusingly, ESPN report that 'Russia's air transport plan is judged high risk - the only high risk mark for any of the 2018 bidders' and that:

On Russia, the report says: "The country's vastness and its remoteness from other countries, coupled with the fact that the high speed rail network is limited ... would put pressure on the air traffic infrastructure potentially causing transfer challenges.

"Any delay in the completion of transport projects could impact on FIFA's tournament operations and the proposed installation of temporary facilities could impose a high cost burden.''

Returning to the Qatar bid though, which I see many are now taking up, via EPLTalk.com I came across some interesting info on the state which might make you think twice before lauding this as a great move:

Human Rights in State of Qatar - Amnesty International

Trafficking in Persons Report 2008 - Qatar - UNHCR

johnmcdnl

Warper wrote: »

Its a joke, plain and simple. Anyone that thinks Qatar is worthy of staging a WC is beyond talking to. It has a population of 1.7 million. The WC will be a pretentious facade of sh1t with a bought crowd and no atmosphere. Bribes bought this venue and blind people can see that.

because we all loved south africa's vuvezelas so much we all did nothing bar cry about them :rolleyes:

3hn2givr7mx1sc

johnmcdnl wrote: »

because we all loved south africa's vuvezelas so much we all did nothing bar cry about them :rolleyes:

A loud buzzing noise is not an atmosphere.

johnmcdnl

baz2009 wrote: »

A loud buzzing noise is not an atmosphere.

then what is - a heap of scousers changing the words to some well known song to associate with the football team that happens to be playing on the field at a given time...

Atmosphere's are different around the globe - just because it's not what your used to doesn't make it any worse..

if vuvuzela's are so annoying then how comes south africans love them so much - it's all down to personal preference at the end of the day..

you mightn't like it but I'm sure there'll be many others out there that will love what Qatar has to offer

citytillidie

I know South Africans who dont like football because of the noise of the vuvuzela's

Ping Chow Chi

Well if FIFA wanted to pick places that never held the world cup before then thats fair enough. It would have been nice to have informed everyone else of their intensions before though and saved some countries a lot of time and effort though.

I hope that is the reason, they look at Russia, large population, like football, never hosted the world cup, give them a go. Then they give it to a middle east country as that region has never held a world cup, it sort of makes sense.

I still feel that there was something underhand at work, but maybe that is just because Sepp Blatter comes accross as quite a shadey charactor.

Pompey Magnus

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

Well if FIFA wanted to pick places that never held the world cup before then thats fair enough. It would have been nice to have informed everyone else of their intensions before though and saved some countries a lot of time and effort though.

Spot on. It was unfair on places like Spain/Portugal and England to have them go through the hard work of preparing excellent bids if all along FIFA had no intention of giving them the tournament no matter how amazing their bid was. Kinda makes a mockery of the whole process tbh.

Mister men

Why is everyone saying the England bid was so amazing? What was so amazing about it. They wheeled out a few bit hitters and thought that Fifa would be star struck and then start moaning about corruption :rolleyes: Kettle pot black etc..

CSF

Mister men wrote: »

Why is everyone saying the England bit was so amazing? What was so amazing about it. They wheeled out a few bit hitters and thought that Fifa would be star struck and then start moaning about corruption :rolleyes: Kettle pot black etc..

They could hold the World Cup at a month's notice.

johnmcdnl

johnmcdnl wrote: »

then what is - a heap of scousers changing the words to some well known song to associate with the football team that happens to be playing on the field at a given time...

what?

paulcorr

johnmcdnl wrote: »

then what is - a heap of scousers changing the words to some well known song to associate with the football team that happens to be playing on the field at a given time...

Atmosphere's are different around the globe - just because it's not what your used to doesn't make it any worse..

if vuvuzela's are so annoying then how comes south africans love them so much - it's all down to personal preference at the end of the day..

you mightn't like it but I'm sure there'll be many others out there that will love what Qatar has to offer

And was South africa not the worst world cup in living memory football wise and atmosphere wise.And has anyone even heard of a Qatar national league or know anything about their national team, money talks in football and thats how they got 2022.

Mister men

CSF wrote: »

They could hold the World Cup at a month's notice.

Your point?

A Primal Nut

I have a number of issues with Qatar hosting this World Cup:

http://www.travel-island.com/immigration.visa/qatar.html

Restricted entry

The Government refuses entry and transit to holders of passports issued by Israel.

They have said they will allow the Israel team to compete if they qualify. But what about the Israeli fans? Will they allowed? And its not just about Israel - I doubt Jewish fans of other teams will feel comfortable going there either.

Even if they make an exception for the month the World Cup takes place, that the law exists at all is not acceptable; and they shouldn't be rewarded with this world cup.

This isn't a thing against Arab Countries - I wouldn't want Israel to host the World Cup either. And you can guarantee FIFA wouldn't allow it as the Arab Countries would boycott it. Double standards.

Also what if I want to travel with a girlfriend who I'm not married to, stay in the hotel room, etc; will this be allowed or frowned upon? There are also issues surrounding Homosexual fans and players at the World Cup. Even if these things are allowed in practice, the fact its officially illegal is a good reason for them not to get the World Cup.

No doubt they will have to make an exception for the month the World Cup takes place; but is it good enough that they ban all these things, allow them for a month; and then ban them again? They should be more tolerant of other people's way of life in the first place.

I don't agree with awarding the World Cup to a dictatorship as it seems like a propaganda coup more than anything. Finally, the population there is too small to justify a World Cup being hosted there. I am happy for the Qatari people, I've spent time in that part of the world and the people are nice are tolerant; my problem is with the Government and the laws.

If Geert Wilders became leader of the Netherlands and banned the Qu'ran, there is no way FIFA would consider hosting a World Cup there even if the Netherlands made an exception for when the World Cup took place.

Every other bidder went out of their way to show how they will welcome the world, are multi-cultural etc; the country which made the least effort in this regard is Qatar, who should have changed all these laws permanently before being considered for the World Cup. What happens if before the World Cup takes place, a new stricter leader takes over; who decides to continue these laws during the World Cup. These risks always exist especially in a dictatorship. Instead, it seems FIFA are the ones doing all the reaching out by giving them this World Cup without the Qataris doing anything to earn it (for example they should have been made prove the heat reduction technology with the building of at least one stadium pre-hosting so that they can demonstrate the technology).

And I don't buy this reaching out to another part of the world - Australia has never hosted the world cup before; not just the country; it is also the only continent which hasn't hosted it also. And they have a much bigger population than Qatar.

Fr Tod Umptious

MY main problem with the Qatar selection is how the hell do they expect to fill the stadiums during the World Cup.

They have great, forward thinking and innovatave ideas on air con, carbon neutral stadiums, dismanting the top tier of stadiums and sending thenm to developeing coutries etc, but in a nation of 1.6 million people how FIFA expect to even romotely fill stadiums of 45k for 56 games ?

It stinks of corruption and politics and unless there are huge changes within FIFA I personally will not give a toss again about WC bids and selection process.

A Primal Nut

Mister men wrote: »

Why is everyone saying the England bid was so amazing? What was so amazing about it. They wheeled out a few bit hitters and thought that Fifa would be star struck and then start moaning about corruption :rolleyes: Kettle pot black etc..

I agree with this - Sky News going on about this all day was hilarious - "Spain, Russia, they don't have any big hitters; but England, we had a future king up there. Thats bound to impress them." :rolleyes: Maybe the delegates were republicans and anti-monarchists!

Was hilarious Sky News as always getting so optimistic about England's chances, sure they are going to win; congratulating themselves; then just like the 2010 World Cup; failing miserably.

Fr Tod Umptious

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I agree with this - Sky News going on about this all day was hilarious - "Spain, Russia, they don't have any big hitters; but England, we had a future king up there. Thats bound to impress them." :rolleyes: Maybe the delegates were republicans and anti-monarchists!

Was hilarious Sky News as always getting so optimistic about England's chances, sure they are going to win; congratulating themselves; then just like the 2010 World Cup; failing miserably.

Oh god, if people are really that hung up about the way SSN etc have covered the selection process then just flick over to another station.

I am really sorry for England and the English people over this, they could, as a poster earlier said, hold the world cup in a months notice, but they got f**ked over by FIFA cos they did not grease enough palms or bow down at the feet of the great FIFA.

A Primal Nut

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Oh god, if people are really that hung up about the way SSN etc have covered the selection process then just flick over to another station.

I am really sorry for England and the English people over this, they could, as a poster earlier said, hold the world cup in a months notice, but they got f**ked over by FIFA cos they did not grease enough palms or bow down at the feet of the great FIFA.

Actually I agree England could have hosted it and its rediculous they only got one vote (apart from the English delegate) and they were definitely punished because of the English media's investigations. FIFA should have postponed the vote until these things were fully investigated. Anyway I watched Sky News coverage as it was the most entertaining!

Fr Tod Umptious

bernardo mac wrote: »

Using a self obsessed commercialised twit like David Beckham does not help your cause

David Beckham is seen as a football ambassador all over the world, particularly in Asia and the USA.

He was an excellent choice by the England bid to be part of it

Can you tell me who else they should have used instead ?

CSF

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Actually I agree England could have hosted it and its rediculous they only got one vote (apart from the English delegate) and they were definitely punished because of the English media's investigations. FIFA should have postponed the vote until these things were fully investigated. Anyway I watched Sky News coverage as it was the most entertaining!

I don't think its anything to do with media investigations or hooliganism in Birmingham at all, Russia bought the World Cup, simple as. If it had been Spain/Portugal, you could have looked at the reasons why England haven't gotten it, because there wouldn't be alot between those 2 bids, and it could take something like that to tilt it in 1 direction, but Russia were without doubt the worst proposition of the possible 2018 hosts. Corruption to the max.

gosplan

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I am really sorry for England and the English people over this, they could, as a poster earlier said, hold the world cup in a months notice, but they got f**ked over by FIFA cos they did not grease enough palms or bow down at the feet of the great FIFA.

I'm not disagreeing with this but I think people are overlooking the potential role of the English media.

Not just the BBC program the other day but the whole Fake Shiek/Rooney and prostitutes/Terry paid for tour of Chelsea angles that the British tabloid media take.

Every World Cup, certain media outlets take it upon themselves to sabotage the English team's campaign. They go after the manager, they go after the players, they go after the FA, and generally make a seriously good attempt to derail everything by either digging up or creating scandal.

I imagine that on some level the FIFA execs looked at that pattern and foresaw a tenacious media gunning for them over the next 8 years till the world cup took place.

Added to that the pattern of the World Cup over the last while has been to place it where it would develop football in countries. Football is developed in England.

All this is supposition of course but I'd be very surprised if the British tabloids weren't a big reason the world cup is going elsewhere.

Fr Tod Umptious

gosplan wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with this but I think people are overlooking the potential role of the English media.

Not just the BBC program the other day but the whole Fake Shiek/Rooney and prostitutes/Terry paid for tour of Chelsea angles that the British tabloid media take.

Every World Cup, certain media outlets take it upon themselves to sabotage the English team's campaign. They go after the manager, they go after the players, they go after the FA, and generally make a seriously good attempt to derail everything by either digging up or creating scandal.

I imagine that on some level the FIFA execs looked at that pattern and foresaw a tenacious media gunning for them over the next 8 years till the world cup took place.

Added to that the pattern of the World Cup over the last while has been to place it where it would develop football in countries. Football is developed in England.

All this is supposition of course but I'd be very surprised if the British tabloids weren't a big reason the world cup is going elsewhere.

Certainly the media played a part, but I think the media was maybe the difference between getting 6 votes and the 2 votes they actually got, not the difference between winning it and loosing it.

bernardo mac

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

David Beckham is seen as a football ambassador all over the world, particularly in Asia and the USA.

He was an excellent choice by the England bid to be part of it

Can you tell me who else they should have used instead ?

I am sure there are many,just making the point that he is not someone who would be taken seriously by many who may be difficult to impress.He is viewed by the British press as an "Iconic" figure.Surely this word is too freely applied to subjects that lack depth,quality....The term Icon might more truly be at home in Russian culture/art. Eddie Afekafe was quite impressive but the campaigning was conducted over a long period and IMHO the curiously hirsute and tattooed "Becks" cut a ridiculous figure in South Africa.If Beckham is the best "ambassador" the powers that be can think of,then PR dept.is lightweight and sadly lacking depth of thought and quality.

Beefy78

Having slept on it I really hope that the English media rip FIFA to shreds about this. Not just today, not just Sunday, but every day and every Sunday until we see some change in the process. I don't care if people call us sore losers, some people will have a pop at England (at times rightly) whatever we do.

Again, I have no issues with Russia winning. There's logistical problems there which will put me off of going myself should England qualify but there's enough things in their favour for me to see why giving them a World Cup isn't a decision to get up in arms about. But there's enough issues with the procedure in place, the lack of transparency, the apparent waste of time that is the FIFA report on the bids and the way that votes can be bought whether illegally or legally (whether that be Brazil playing a friendly in Qatar or David Beckham opening up a soccer school in Trinidad).

I'm 32 now. If I never see a World Cup in England then fair enough. It can only be held in one place every four years after all. But I don't think it's too much to ask that the decision be made by an open and fair process that people can have faith in and I don't see that today.

Beefy78

bernardo mac wrote: »

I am sure there are many,just making the point that he is not someone who would be taken seriously by many who may be difficult to impress.He is viewed by the British press as an "Iconic" figure.Surely this word is too freely applied to subjects that lack depth,quality....The term Icon might more truly be at home in Russian culture/art. Eddie Afekafe was quite impressive but the campaigning was conducted over a long period and IMHO the curiously hirsute and tattooed "Becks" cut a ridiculous figure in South Africa.If Beckham is the best "ambassador" the powers that be can think of,then PR dept.is lightweight and sadly lacking depth of thought and quality.

I think you seriously underestimate the influence that David Beckham has. He was a much more significant and effective figure out there than either David Cameron or Prince William.

Fr Tod Umptious

Beefy78 wrote: »

I think you seriously underestimate the influence that David Beckham has. He was a much more significant and effective figure out there than either David Cameron or Prince William.

Spot on

bernardo mac wrote: »

.If Beckham is the best "ambassador" the powers that be can think of,then PR dept.is lightweight and sadly lacking depth of thought and quality.

Lets have your alternative then ?

niallo27

Sepp Blatter, a guy who when asked who his favourite Qatar Player was, responded with Eric Clapton.